From spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com Wed Feb 1 08:40:17 2012 From: spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com (Steve Poole) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:40:17 +0000 Subject: AIX and OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <4F281AFE.7030406@oracle.com> References: <4F27C738.6010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F281AFE.7030406@oracle.com> Message-ID: <4F296AF1.9090001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> On 31/01/2012 16:46, Alan Bateman wrote: > On 31/01/2012 10:49, Steve Poole wrote: >> >> hi all, >> >> Last year there was a discussion [1] about adding AIX platform >> support into OpenJDK. I'd like to pick up that conversation and >> complete this work. >> >> To recap the salient points of the thread: >> >> 1: The scale of the changes to support AIX without Hotspot are >> small ( ~ 300 LOC) There are an additional 19 new files that >> cover AIX specific build files and providing necessary support >> for AIX specific filesystem, virtual machine and process >> attributes in the same manner as is already done for Linux, Solaris >> and Windows etc. Generally the changes have been coded as capability >> based rather than platform focused. These changes are easy to >> understand and help towards improving platform portability. >> >> 2: Generally AIX is very close to both Linux and Solaris. As you >> would expect we will help ensure OpenJDK developers do not break >> things where they do not have access to an AIX machine. >> >> 3: This work will faciliate the porting of Hotspot to AIX but IBM >> intends to focus on our own JVM at this time (as you would imagine). >> We will make a binary of the JVM available for OpenJDK developers >> who want early access on AIX of ongoing work in JDK8 and AIX. >> >> I said I would post more when all the changes under item 2 above had >> been posted. That's basically now. I'd like to pick up the >> conversation again and resolve how to get the remaining files into >> OpenJDK so it's possible to build and run JDK 8 on AIX. >> >> I do not consider that the scale of these changes warrant a porting >> project all of their own. Does anyone have a reason why I shouldn't >> just start posting the additional files with the intention of getting >> them added into the main JDK8 repos? >> >> Steve >> > Steve - in the thread that you cited then I was the one that suggested > a porting project as a possible route. I still think this is the good > approach as it would allow a complete port to be stabilized before > going into the master. The Mac port will be moving into the mainline > soon and is a good example (along the BSD project from where it > started) that these projects can get into the mainline. I can see your point of view but the amount of work to support AIX is much lower than that for Mac - so I don't see the need. You obviously have some critieria in your head about port vs no port so I would be interested to understand that in more detail. > From your mail then clearly the VM is the problem. I'm curious if > you've looked at Zero? I don't have experience with it but it should > simplify greatly the effort to get a VM going. Maybe folks with > experience with Zero could jump in to give some indication of the > effort required to build to a new architecture/OS. It may involve some > work but it would mean that everything is built from source (as > opposed to using a binary plug as you suggest). To be honest Alan, I tried building Zero on windows and linux and it was not a great story (instructions are fairly limited) so I didn't try to build it on AIX. Of course I don't have a problem with someone else giving it go! > > -Alan. > From spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com Wed Feb 1 08:50:30 2012 From: spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com (Steve Poole) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:50:30 +0000 Subject: AIX and OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <4F289CA6.7080609@oracle.com> References: <4F27C738.6010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F289CA6.7080609@oracle.com> Message-ID: <4F296D56.1010606@linux.vnet.ibm.com> On 01/02/2012 02:00, David Holmes wrote: > Stepping up a level I think we need to address the way we currently > arrange our sources and build files along OS/architecture lines before > trying to integrate any further ports into mainline (including the OSX > port that is currently off-to-the-side in 7u-osx). The initial scheme > (Windows else not-Windows-but-lets-call-it-Solaris) simply does not > expand cleanly and we do not want an explosion of ifdefs in the native > code (I welcome the attempt to use capability-based schemes here where > feasible). Completely agree - luckly most of the AIX changes fit into the capability based scheme so there are very little extra ifdefs. > > Relatedly we have two major upheavals to the source and build systems > in the pipeline: modules and the new build-infra project. These will > have enough impact on their own, without trying to somehow merge two > ports (OSX and AIX) at the same time. > > So to that end a porting project with custom workspaces is the best > way to go in my opinion as it means the port can be created based on > current layouts and be made available to those wanting it, then over > time, and probably for post JDK8, get updated to handle modules and > the new build system. > > Just my personal opinions. > > David Holmes > > On 31/01/2012 8:49 PM, Steve Poole wrote: >> >> hi all, >> >> Last year there was a discussion [1] about adding AIX platform support >> into OpenJDK. I'd like to pick up that conversation and complete this >> work. >> >> To recap the salient points of the thread: >> >> 1: The scale of the changes to support AIX without Hotspot are small ( ~ >> 300 LOC) There are an additional 19 new files that cover AIX specific >> build files and providing necessary support for AIX specific filesystem, >> virtual machine and process attributes in the same manner as is already >> done for Linux, Solaris and Windows etc. Generally the changes have been >> coded as capability based rather than platform focused. These changes >> are easy to understand and help towards improving platform portability. >> >> 2: Generally AIX is very close to both Linux and Solaris. As you would >> expect we will help ensure OpenJDK developers do not break things where >> they do not have access to an AIX machine. >> >> 3: This work will faciliate the porting of Hotspot to AIX but IBM >> intends to focus on our own JVM at this time (as you would imagine). We >> will make a binary of the JVM available for OpenJDK developers who want >> early access on AIX of ongoing work in JDK8 and AIX. >> >> I said I would post more when all the changes under item 2 above had >> been posted. That's basically now. I'd like to pick up the conversation >> again and resolve how to get the remaining files into OpenJDK so it's >> possible to build and run JDK 8 on AIX. >> >> I do not consider that the scale of these changes warrant a porting >> project all of their own. Does anyone have a reason why I shouldn't just >> start posting the additional files with the intention of getting them >> added into the main JDK8 repos? >> >> Steve >> >> [1] >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/porters-dev/2011-October/000363.html >> >> > From Alan.Bateman at oracle.com Wed Feb 1 10:02:09 2012 From: Alan.Bateman at oracle.com (Alan Bateman) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:02:09 +0000 Subject: AIX and OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <4F296AF1.9090001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <4F27C738.6010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F281AFE.7030406@oracle.com> <4F296AF1.9090001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: <4F297E21.2020601@oracle.com> On 01/02/2012 16:40, Steve Poole wrote: > > I can see your point of view but the amount of work to support AIX is > much lower than that for Mac - so I don't see the need. You obviously > have some critieria in your head about port vs no port so I would be > interested to understand that in more detail. If we have a port to AIX in OpenJDK then I would expect to be able to ssh into a machine running AIX, setup the tools/environment, clone the jdk8 forest and run "make". With the proposal then someone doing this will not be building everything from source, and I think that's a problem. > To be honest Alan, I tried building Zero on windows and linux and it > was not a great story (instructions are fairly limited) so I didn't > try to build it on AIX. Of course I don't have a problem with > someone else giving it go! I don't have any experiences with Zero to have suggestions, except perhaps providing access to a machine so that folks in the community could jump in and give it a go. I also remember in the original thread that Volker Simonis chimed in to mention that they (SAP) have a port of HotSpot to AIX. I don't know anything about this but maybe there is an opportunity to team up to get a basic port of Zero going. -Alan From volker.simonis at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 10:26:38 2012 From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 19:26:38 +0100 Subject: AIX and OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <4F29716E.1020204@oracle.com> References: <4F27C738.6010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F29716E.1020204@oracle.com> Message-ID: I think the prerequisite for a port can not be that there exists access to it on "x86 hardware". With this constraint there will never be an OpenJDK port to other architectures like PPC/Itanium/ARM to name just a few. (By the way, there once upon a time was a mips -porting project http://openjdk.java.net/projects/mips-port/ which was hosted at http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/openjdk6-mips and which seems to be dead now although it probably didn't run on x86 hardware:) On the other hand, I think it is valid to request build/test access to a platform if there is a port for that platform. However I think the modalities for such an access should be handled by the group which leads the port. The real problem with such an access is that the current Oracle build/test infrastructure is NOT open and does not easily allow the integration of external machines. This is a pain point since long time and we constantly here that Sun and now Oracle is working on it (don't want to blame anybody here!) - but it's just the way how it currently works. After all it seems that we get a new bug tracking system REAL SOON now. The next steps would be a new review system AND of course an open, extensible(from outside Oracle), automatic build and test system. But until we get there, I think an AIX port project would be the appropriate way to handle such changes. Of course IBM would be free to make some build/test hardware/infrastructure available and if that works pretty well it would probably accelerate the integration of the port into the mainline. Regards, Volker On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Phil Race wrote: > On 1/31/2012 2:49 AM, Steve Poole wrote: >> >> >> hi all, >> >> Last year ?there was a discussion [1] about adding AIX platform support >> into OpenJDK. I'd like to pick up that conversation and complete this work. >> >> To recap ?the salient points of the thread: >> >> 1: The scale of the changes to support ?AIX without Hotspot are small ?( ~ >> 300 LOC) ? There are ?an additional 19 new files that cover ?AIX ?specific >> build files and providing ?necessary support for ?AIX specific filesystem, >> virtual machine ?and ?process attributes ?in the same manner as is already >> done for Linux, Solaris and Windows etc. Generally the changes have been >> coded as capability based rather than platform focused. These changes are >> easy to understand and help towards improving platform portability. >> >> 2: ?Generally AIX is very close to both Linux and Solaris. As you would >> expect we will help ensure OpenJDK developers do not break things where they >> do not have access to an AIX machine. > > > There's a lot of UI choices we make that need to distinguish between Linux > and Solaris, > often made on the basis of the "os.name" property > So I seriously doubt that it will even be possible to know what to do > without being an AIX developer. > Do you have motif ? What version of X11? What's the printing story on AIX? > What's the font > support? What window managers ? Etc. etc. etc. > Whilst you may be able to contribute the "status quo" what's to happen in > the future. > At least for Solaris one can simply install the x86 version on any PC > hardware you have lying > around and know that its identical to SPARC in all regards that matter to an > app. > So I think unless we have guaranteed continual free access to AIX systems on > x86 hardware > (does that exist?) that AIX can't be a proper port of the same stature as > the others and > I would vote against it without at least all of the above being resolved. > > -phil. > > > > >> >> 3: This work will faciliate the porting of ?Hotspot to AIX ?but IBM >> intends to focus on our own JVM at this time (as you would imagine). We will >> make a binary of the JVM available for OpenJDK developers ?who want early >> access on AIX of ongoing work in JDK8 and AIX. >> >> I said I would post more when all ?the changes under item 2 above had been >> posted. ?That's ?basically ?now. ?I'd like to pick up the conversation again >> and resolve ?how to get the remaining files into OpenJDK so it's possible to >> ?build and run JDK 8 ?on AIX. >> >> ?I do not consider that the scale of these changes warrant a porting >> project all of their own. ?Does anyone have a reason why I shouldn't ?just >> start posting the additional files with the intention of getting them added >> into the main JDK8 repos? >> >> Steve >> >> [1] >> ?http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/porters-dev/2011-October/000363.html >> > From volker.simonis at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 10:30:34 2012 From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 19:30:34 +0100 Subject: AIX and OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <4F297E21.2020601@oracle.com> References: <4F27C738.6010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F281AFE.7030406@oracle.com> <4F296AF1.9090001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F297E21.2020601@oracle.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > On 01/02/2012 16:40, Steve Poole wrote: >> >> >> I can see your point of view ?but the amount of work to support AIX is >> much lower than that for Mac - so I don't see the need. ?You obviously have >> some critieria in your head about port vs no port so I would be interested >> to understand that in more detail. > > If we have a port to AIX in OpenJDK then I would expect to be able to ssh > into a machine running AIX, setup the tools/environment, clone the jdk8 > forest and run "make". With the proposal then someone doing this will not be > building everything from source, and I think that's a problem. > > >> To be honest Alan, I tried building Zero on windows and linux and it was >> not a great story (instructions are fairly limited) so I didn't try to build >> it on AIX. ? ?Of course I don't have a problem with someone else giving it >> go! > > I don't have any experiences with Zero to have suggestions, except perhaps > providing access to a machine so that folks in the community could jump in > and give it a go. I also remember in the original thread that Volker Simonis > chimed in to mention that they (SAP) have a port of HotSpot to AIX. I don't > know anything about this but maybe there is an opportunity to team up to get > a basic port of Zero going. What I can promise is that we will be 'teaming up' real soon now regarding this topic where 'real soon' means FOSDEM :) > > -Alan From Alan.Bateman at oracle.com Thu Feb 2 02:43:40 2012 From: Alan.Bateman at oracle.com (Alan Bateman) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:43:40 +0000 Subject: AIX and OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: <4F27C738.6010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F29716E.1020204@oracle.com> Message-ID: <4F2A68DC.5050908@oracle.com> On 01/02/2012 18:26, Volker Simonis wrote: > I think the prerequisite for a port can not be that there exists > access to it on "x86 hardware". > > With this constraint there will never be an OpenJDK port to other > architectures like PPC/Itanium/ARM to name just a few. > (By the way, there once upon a time was a mips -porting project > http://openjdk.java.net/projects/mips-port/ which was hosted at > http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/openjdk6-mips and which seems to be > dead now although it probably didn't run on x86 hardware:) > > On the other hand, I think it is valid to request build/test access to > a platform if there is a port for that platform. However I think the > modalities for such an access should be handled by the group which > leads the port. > > The real problem with such an access is that the current Oracle > build/test infrastructure is NOT open and does not easily allow the > integration of external machines. This is a pain point since long time > and we constantly here that Sun and now Oracle is working on it (don't > want to blame anybody here!) - but it's just the way how it currently > works. After all it seems that we get a new bug tracking system REAL > SOON now. The next steps would be a new review system AND of course an > open, extensible(from outside Oracle), automatic build and test > system. > > But until we get there, I think an AIX port project would be the > appropriate way to handle such changes. Of course IBM would be free to > make some build/test hardware/infrastructure available and if that > works pretty well it would probably accelerate the integration of the > port into the mainline. This thread highlights that we need to figure out how OpenJDK can accommodate additional ports going forward. I would be interested to hear how other projects do this. I've heard of projects that have a core set of platforms and then additional teams of volunteers that keep ports that aren't as main stream up to date. If OpenJDK takes on too many platforms then there is the risk that we spend a lot of time just trying to keep things stable and it also means needing ready access to every platform (I suspect this is what Phil is concerned about). There are probably other things we can learn that would help with the code layout too (the jdk repo has to change). -Alan From aph at redhat.com Thu Feb 2 02:49:59 2012 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:49:59 +0000 Subject: AIX and OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <4F2A68DC.5050908@oracle.com> References: <4F27C738.6010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F29716E.1020204@oracle.com> <4F2A68DC.5050908@oracle.com> Message-ID: <4F2A6A57.1020001@redhat.com> On 02/02/2012 10:43 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > This thread highlights that we need to figure out how OpenJDK can > accommodate additional ports going forward. I would be interested to > hear how other projects do this. I've heard of projects that have a > core set of platforms and then additional teams of volunteers that > keep ports that aren't as main stream up to date. If OpenJDK takes > on too many platforms then there is the risk that we spend a lot of > time just trying to keep things stable and it also means needing > ready access to every platform (I suspect this is what Phil is > concerned about). There are lots of projects that have separate ports sub-projects; I know about gcc and glibc. The rule for secondary architectures is that the core maintainers don't build and test on them and it's up to the ports maintainers to do the right thing to keep everything working. If a port isn't maintained it's deleted. This seems like a very sensible model, and I urge OpenJDK to adopt it. The big difference with OpenJDK is that so much of the build and test infrastructure is behind Oracle's firewall. And yes, I appreciate that's being worked on. Andrew. From spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com Thu Feb 2 03:33:54 2012 From: spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com (Steve Poole) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:33:54 +0000 Subject: AIX and OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <4F2A68DC.5050908@oracle.com> References: <4F27C738.6010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F29716E.1020204@oracle.com> <4F2A68DC.5050908@oracle.com> Message-ID: <4F2A74A2.9040102@linux.vnet.ibm.com> On 02/02/2012 10:43, Alan Bateman wrote: > On 01/02/2012 18:26, Volker Simonis wrote: >> I think the prerequisite for a port can not be that there exists >> access to it on "x86 hardware". >> >> With this constraint there will never be an OpenJDK port to other >> architectures like PPC/Itanium/ARM to name just a few. >> (By the way, there once upon a time was a mips -porting project >> http://openjdk.java.net/projects/mips-port/ which was hosted at >> http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/openjdk6-mips and which seems to be >> dead now although it probably didn't run on x86 hardware:) >> >> On the other hand, I think it is valid to request build/test access to >> a platform if there is a port for that platform. However I think the >> modalities for such an access should be handled by the group which >> leads the port. >> >> The real problem with such an access is that the current Oracle >> build/test infrastructure is NOT open and does not easily allow the >> integration of external machines. This is a pain point since long time >> and we constantly here that Sun and now Oracle is working on it (don't >> want to blame anybody here!) - but it's just the way how it currently >> works. After all it seems that we get a new bug tracking system REAL >> SOON now. The next steps would be a new review system AND of course an >> open, extensible(from outside Oracle), automatic build and test >> system. >> >> But until we get there, I think an AIX port project would be the >> appropriate way to handle such changes. Of course IBM would be free to >> make some build/test hardware/infrastructure available and if that >> works pretty well it would probably accelerate the integration of the >> port into the mainline. > This thread highlights that we need to figure out how OpenJDK can > accommodate additional ports going forward. I would be interested to > hear how other projects do this. I've heard of projects that have a > core set of platforms and then additional teams of volunteers that > keep ports that aren't as main stream up to date. If OpenJDK takes on > too many platforms then there is the risk that we spend a lot of time > just trying to keep things stable and it also means needing ready > access to every platform (I suspect this is what Phil is concerned > about). There are probably other things we can learn that would help > with the code layout too (the jdk repo has to change). > Yes, agree - we do need to figure this out. There is a balance to be met between mainstream and non-mainstream. I will point out though that everyone having ready access to every platform is not a prerequisite to being mainstream. Even if hardware is "readily" available it would not be a panacea. A developer would still need some level of platform knowledge. If you look at this from another angle - as developers we all have particular areas of expertise and areas we no less well. I certainly wouldn't want to claim expertise in the intricacies of Window Managers and I would therefore defer to the experts. It the same for platform specific issues. The idea is that as a community we work as a group to ensure that it all comes together. What makes a platform mainstream is driven most by the number of people actively working to develop and maintain it. The changes for AIX are small and there are a number of people who are willing to provide the necessary long term support. So I'm struggling with why we can't just get these changes into OpenJDK directly. From philip.race at oracle.com Wed Feb 1 09:07:58 2012 From: philip.race at oracle.com (Phil Race) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:07:58 -0800 Subject: AIX and OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <4F27C738.6010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <4F27C738.6010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: <4F29716E.1020204@oracle.com> On 1/31/2012 2:49 AM, Steve Poole wrote: > > hi all, > > Last year there was a discussion [1] about adding AIX platform > support into OpenJDK. I'd like to pick up that conversation and > complete this work. > > To recap the salient points of the thread: > > 1: The scale of the changes to support AIX without Hotspot are small > ( ~ 300 LOC) There are an additional 19 new files that cover AIX > specific build files and providing necessary support for AIX > specific filesystem, virtual machine and process attributes in the > same manner as is already done for Linux, Solaris and Windows etc. > Generally the changes have been coded as capability based rather than > platform focused. These changes are easy to understand and help > towards improving platform portability. > > 2: Generally AIX is very close to both Linux and Solaris. As you > would expect we will help ensure OpenJDK developers do not break > things where they do not have access to an AIX machine. There's a lot of UI choices we make that need to distinguish between Linux and Solaris, often made on the basis of the "os.name" property So I seriously doubt that it will even be possible to know what to do without being an AIX developer. Do you have motif ? What version of X11? What's the printing story on AIX? What's the font support? What window managers ? Etc. etc. etc. Whilst you may be able to contribute the "status quo" what's to happen in the future. At least for Solaris one can simply install the x86 version on any PC hardware you have lying around and know that its identical to SPARC in all regards that matter to an app. So I think unless we have guaranteed continual free access to AIX systems on x86 hardware (does that exist?) that AIX can't be a proper port of the same stature as the others and I would vote against it without at least all of the above being resolved. -phil. > > 3: This work will faciliate the porting of Hotspot to AIX but IBM > intends to focus on our own JVM at this time (as you would imagine). > We will make a binary of the JVM available for OpenJDK developers who > want early access on AIX of ongoing work in JDK8 and AIX. > > I said I would post more when all the changes under item 2 above had > been posted. That's basically now. I'd like to pick up the > conversation again and resolve how to get the remaining files into > OpenJDK so it's possible to build and run JDK 8 on AIX. > > I do not consider that the scale of these changes warrant a porting > project all of their own. Does anyone have a reason why I shouldn't > just start posting the additional files with the intention of getting > them added into the main JDK8 repos? > > Steve > > [1] > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/porters-dev/2011-October/000363.html > From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Mon Feb 6 09:48:46 2012 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (Dalibor Topic) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:48:46 +0100 Subject: AIX and OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <4F27C738.6010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <4F27C738.6010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: <4F30127E.2050306@oracle.com> On 1/31/12 11:49 AM, Steve Poole wrote: > 1: The scale of the changes to support AIX without Hotspot are small ( ~ 300 LOC) There are an additional 19 new files that cover AIX specific build files and providing necessary support for AIX specific filesystem, virtual machine and process attributes in the same manner as is already done for Linux, Solaris and Windows etc. Generally the changes have been coded as capability based rather than platform focused. These changes are easy to understand and help towards improving platform portability. I don't think that size is a convincing argument one way or another, beyond 'is a set of trivial changes required to support this new platform or not?'. If the answer is no, then I think a porting effort is best placed as its own Project, allowing it to build up a community as it progresses in its development. 19 new files sounds more like a no to me, fwiw. Sometimes the community loses interest and a project goes dormant, like in the MIPS port, then there is no goodwill spent merging a port into mainline and then consecutively backing out again. Sometime, the community drives a port to completion and it successfully produces fully open source builds that pass the TCK, like Zero, then there is a strong case to be made for them to be merged into the mainline and maintained by its community there. The way we've done this quite successfully in the Porters group is to eagerly create porting Projects, and when such Projects look mature enough to provide a fully open source & compatible implementation, then start looking at how to integrate them into the mainline, if they so desire. Some Projects may never reach that stage - and that's fine, too. For the Projects that do reach the stage, I believe that having had their own Project for a while ends up being a blessing - they can build up their community and fine tune their development model without having to conform with the development & review processes on the mainline until it's time to start thinking about the merge. From what you write below about the necessity for binary blobs for the port initially, that sounds exactly like an AIX port would need - a place for the community to get together and start experimenting with making it work together with Zero, Shark or some other way of running OpenJDK on whatever CPU architectures AIX runs on these days - I guess ppc32? ppc64? > 2: Generally AIX is very close to both Linux and Solaris. As you would expect we will help ensure OpenJDK developers do not break things where they do not have access to an AIX machine. That'd be necessary, of course - my recommendation these days is that porting Projects should start their work on a released version of the platform, rather then on an in development version. Generally, the amount of churn and accidental breakage should be lower for a porting Project following JDK 7 Updates, then for one following JDK 8. Once you're up and happily running with JDK 7 Updates and regularly sync with the mainline without issues, you can start thinking about tracking JDK 8 in a separate forest. I'd also recommend syncing with the mainline on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. But yeah - it's up to a porting project to keep their port squeaky clean and contribute fixes back to the mainline. The Mac OS X Port did a great job of attracting community members (salut, Henri!) providing build scripts, and more, for example, as I pointed out at FOSDEM. > 3: This work will faciliate the porting of Hotspot to AIX but IBM intends to focus on our own JVM at this time (as you would imagine). > We will make a binary of the JVM available for OpenJDK developers who want early access on AIX of ongoing work in JDK8 and AIX. I'd point out that binary blobs are a bit of a mess. We've had them early on in OpenJDK mainline, and they made it hard for people to get involved by making it even harder to build the Project(s), so we've gradually phased them out from OpenJDK. So I'd like to see the port work with what's already in OpenJDK, like Zero, as it would allow the community to actually have a fully open source implementation on that platform, as well. A port of OpenJDK that required a non-open source VM to work on AIX to me would basically signal to the community that there is a huge asterisk attached to the fact that OpenJDK is a fully open source reference implementation - "actual fullness of open source is only available on selected platforms". That's not to say that I'd expect you to start porting HotSpot to AIX yourself - but I'd expect someone in the AIX Port's community to pick up the baton and do it, the probably easiest way of doing it being to make Zero work on AIX. Given that right now there is no well-defined interface to plug in different VMs into OpenJDK, I think that's another factor that speaks for starting a separate Project first, and then collecting experiences with the selected approach once the port also works on Zero, etc. before heading for the mainline. cheers, dalibor topic -- Oracle Dalibor Topic | Java F/OSS Ambassador Phone: +494023646738 | Mobile: +491772664192 Oracle Java Platform Group ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Nagelsweg 55 | 20097 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: J?rgen Kunz Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander van der Ven, Astrid Kepper, Val Maher Green Oracle Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment